6:42 "If not for God, what would keep people from murdering their babies for food?"
Jeremiah 19.9 "I [God] will make them eat the flesh of their sons and daughters, and they will eat one another’s flesh because their enemies will press the siege so hard against them to destroy them."
Uh... maybe Satan? Yeah, I think Satan will keep people from murdering their own babies for food. I think Christians are on the wrong side with this 'God' guy.
@selenadelos Thanks. In large measure Christians are "moral" because they define morality as equivalent to being Christian. I never realized how prevalent this was until I got on Youtube.
How you can say "big bang" is supported by evidence is beyond me, it's basically the genesis myth from the bible. Big bang believers are no better than christains.
@fertilizerspike How can I say that the Big Bang is supported by evidence? Because it's true. Observed Hubble redshift. Observed cosmic microwave background radiation. Observed relative abundance of H vs. He in universe.
The "Hubble redshift" is not evidence of "big bang". A full explanation lies outside the scope of a YouTube comments. Check Arp's research on "redshift" as an intrinsic property of celestial objects, not an indicator of either distance or recessional velocity. CMBR was not predicted by "big bang", and the properties of the observed microwave "background" preclude "big bang" unless the Earth is in the center of the universe, clearly preposterous.
One more thing about "CMBR", big bang believers ventured many guesses, virtually all of which were wrong by an order of magnitude. This was seen as a "success" by big bang believers. Every error they make is proof (in their eyes) that their beliefs are true. When the evidence blatantly falsifies their beliefs, they invent a new force or particle to take up the slack and explain their errors away.
@fertilizerspike Predicted by George Gamow (and others) in 1948. Observed in 1964. You are really a flake spewing foolishness. Spew all you want. Your posts aren't worth the time they take to read.
"But George Gamow, credited with the prediction from Big Bang assumptions, estimated 5K in 1948. In the 1950s he raised that estimate to 10K, and by 1961 he was predicting 50K."
This is just one example of the predicted "temperature" of the universe, Gamow first guessed 5K, then 10K, then steadily upward until he got to 50K. Dozens of astronogers made similar guesses. He did not predict "CMBR", he predicted the "temperature" of the universe. Further, evidence suggests CMBR is local.
"The first astronomer to collect observations from which the temperature of space could be calculated was Andrew McKellar. In 1941 he announced a temperature of 2.3K from radiative excitation of certain molecules."
So we see, even with DIRECT OBSERVATIONS of the "temperature" of the universe, Gamow and others still guessed wildly wrong. They were utterly ignorant of these observations that already proved their guesses wrong. McKeller's claim fits well without "big bang" assumptions.
Oh, also, eat my shit, you dumb mother fucker. Clearly you don't have a fucking clue what the hell you're talking about. As I stated previously, it's obvious you guessed right about god by accident, because you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to science, and in particular astronomy. All you have is a head full of astronoger fables that you've swallowed wholesale.
@fertilizerspike I've made videos that required the application of actual science & math (e.g., orbital simulations). You do not. Until you actually generate some content demonstrating some scientific understanding, you are just a ranting lunatic.
I haven't seen all of your videos, but of the ones I've seen, they seem like nothing more than masturbatory hit pieces on christains. Talk about shooting fish in a barrel. I don't really think you're qualified to defend your absurd beliefs regarding astronomy, or you'd be doing so, instead of issuing superfluous "challenges" to somebody who's only tried to correct your errors. Wallow in your ignorance, I don't really care. You haven't significantly challenged any of my claims.
@fertilizerspike I love it when whack jobs like you start spewing statements like "eat my shit, you dumb mother fucker." It's FAIL at so profound a level. I can almost see the drool running down your chin. Ignorance like yours is one of things that motivate me to make science videos. Heck, I might even make a video about it!
Don't project your drooling onto me. What makes you think you produce "science videos"? You're the one who's ignorant. You seem to only be capable of being right by accident. Again, you haven't offered any significant challenge to any of my claims.
Hydrogen and helium abundances also are not evidence supporting "big bang", the observed abundances were retrofitted into "big bang". That's what cosmonogers do, they claim that every observation supports "big bang". When it doesn't, they invent new particles or bodies ("black hole", "WIMP", "MACHO", "dark matter", "dark energy") to make up the difference and explain the errors away. Big bang is an absurc creationist myth, it's essentially the genesis myth from the bible, utter crap.
One more thing about "redshift", if you examine the virgo cluster and app11ly "redshift = distance = velocity" assumptions, we conclude that the virgo cluster is arranged in two long "fingers of god" pointing directly at Earth. Geocentric universe, anyone? Clearly this is absurd. Most of what is taught as astronomy is bunk, never verified by any experiment (fundamental to science), just a collection of fables astronogers tell each other, no better than astrology.
I think what bothers me most about your apparent belief in "big bang" and your attempts to defend it is that it mirrors virtually every creation myth from every known human culture. That you don't see this is testament to your inability to actually distinguish science from bunk. This leads me to believe you only came down on the right side of religion due to accident. Perhaps you hated some christains in school and now as an adult you've made it your mission to mock them. Well whatever
evolution does not disprove the existence of a creator. It may be supported as a tool of intelligent deisgn in which a high power ordered organisms to operate. And the big bang (theory) does the same..And yes I know "the world being created in 6 days" isnt viable. But evolution and the big bang (theory) are not the END GAME analysis.
@TheYoungTurds1 Exactly as you said, "may be". And you seem to have misunderstood the scientific meaning of "theory". In science, a theory is a part of fact and vice versa. Think of a fact as a word in a dictionary and a theory as the explanation for that word. The Big Bang is real and very much a fact, but nobody goes "Big Bang Fact" because informed individuals already know it's a fact. It's a "Big Bang Theory", because it's the explanation of the origin of our universe. Duh...
So there is no evidence to support a creator? What is the purpose of the existence of RNA? Life, the answer given is not logical. It just diverts from the point of the question. (what came first, the chicken or the egg?) LOL nice try though. Evolution explains the development of complexity since they has been no observation of anything becoming more complex. No man could ever be good enough nor could man earn his way to heaven. God died for the whole world, JD included.
@ozmoroid There is no evidence and the proponents re: agiogenesis is far fetched at best. Most scientists have accepted the redundancy involved in such a preposterous suggestion. Life cannot even be manufactured in a controlled lab let alone in a hostile environment. It's sad to see science turn a blind eye to the probability of ID. Personally I think Darwin would have long since abandoned his own idea especially under the mere assumption of Irreducible Complexity....
@gallantentry "Most scientists have accepted ..." Any evidence for that claim? Look for szostakweb on the harvard university website. Jack Szostak is a Nobel Laureate whose lab has made great strides in developing self-replicating and evolving complex chemical systems.
@ozmoroid ...machines do not design themselves especially ones that can self replicate! Engineers have to learn their science and then apply it to create a design. That is common sense. Sometimes brilliance washes out good ole horse sense to which btw, will get someone much further than learnedness.
@gallantentry maybe they are not machines They are molecules. Its the same argument that says
ooooooooo the DNA has all this information NO these are termed so that it becomes easier to study For example 'A' for adenine will make it easier to study than calling it adenosine triphosphate or drawing the molecular structure There is plenty of research done in this field. try searching "pubmed" As somebody who does research (in a different field) it is painful when someone calls our lifes work a lie
@gallantentry and please the next time when u say something like "most scientists accept such and such is very far fetched", please leave a source because thats the way science works.
There have been observed instances where single cellular organisms turned multi cellular, with in 100 generations in a lab when appropriate selection pressures were introduced.
Machines dont design themselves. For eg. if a particular formation of chemicals provides them with an advantage, they are selected. contd.
@mignik01 If you want the facts badly enough, you will do the research unbiased. I cannot possibly post in a small comment box all known related material I use, but leave it to the discretion of the reader to do his/her own homework. However, it is a fact. Google is a good way to start. Read both sides and don't allow your emotions to dictate what is factual and what isn't. It will not retain respect. People choose to believe what they do typically because of their emotional involvement.
@gallantentry I do research although in a different field and let me tell you, google can be your worst enemy. people tend to write down anything that comes in their minds in google. There is no fact checking process. Just type in "why glass is transparent?'" and you will see "both sides of the argument" or type in "Evidence supporting flat earth theory" and you will see "both sides of the argument".
Contd. And sometimes, infact most of the times, common sense often stands in your way than be of any use. What does our common sense say about quantum tunneling or superposition of states or wave function of an electron. U simply cannot address a room full of scientists and say "its common sense right".
Now maybe u r right. I fully accept but, the reasons that you or most of the creationists put forward are not enough to back up ur claim. contd.
contd. The only scientific claim that was put forward against evolution that i'm aware of is, irreducible complexity. Scientists atleast had to do some work to put it down. Do some research like that.
@mignik01 You can'y disprove a negative. Evolution has no proof and IC has not been 'put down' as to be ignored. The truth is, all microbiology disproves evolution. There is no case study or proof of anything macro-evolving. Plant life is a great example. Look it up.
@gallantentry evolution has been the most tested theory in the history of science. Not because of the controversy, its what holds biology together. its the central theory in biology. it helps hold together separate fields of biology including microbiology. Again source for your claims.
Wouldn't you consider evolution from single cell to multi cellular as "macro evolutions". . I just searched "observed instances of speciation" in pubmed and got 1038 hits from one of its sources.
@mignik01 "evolution has been the most tested theory in the history of science." How can we test it if we have no proof of it? Not possible! Evolution is a hoax and propagates ignorance. Evolution makes money and is a proponent to those who would deny the existence of an ID. People would rather deny there's a God than be honest with themselves(and others) about the failing theory of evolution. with every knew discovery comes a new problem with the theory. It's a lie.
@gallantentry I'll tell you how to test a theory. Evolution says we should be able to find transitional forms of species. about a year after darwin published it we found archeoptryx lithographica Evolution says we need to find a mechanism for natural selection to act on, some more than half a century later, we find the DNA. Evolution says we should still have the genes of ancestoral species in us, ofcourse we have, we have genes to make tail and thick body hair. chickens have genes to make teeth
@gallantentry science is agnostic. it doesnt comment about the existence of a creator or anything supernatural. I'll tell you what happens when that is not followed. Issac newton could not explain the stability of the solar system with his theory, and he invoked god. it took a century and a half for Laplace to come along and replace it with pertubation theory. Newton could've done that but he didn't. he gave it to an ID.
@gallantentry There hasnt been a single observation that shakes the pillars of biology. NONE. enlighten me. provide the sources. just type in the link. I have seen every single one of the creationist argument. U cannot make a statement that is not backed up by evidence.
There are 250,000 plus published(in main stream scientific journals), peer reviewed(in main stream scientific journals) scientific papers on evolution, in the past 150 years. Yet you say you can disprove it. Please post the published (main stream media), peer reviewed paper that will change the scientific world.
@gallantentry you need to look up Chaos Theory. A sippet from Wikipedia's Chaos thory page: "In 1987, Per Bak, Chao Tang and Kurt Wiesenfeld published a paper in Physical Review Letters[58] describing for the first time self-organized criticality (SOC), considered to be one of the mechanisms by which complexity arises in nature."
Poisson gas is French for "Fish Gas", which I find very amusing. But I agree whole-heartedly with that point about Christianity: It has far less claim to absolute morality than ANY other belief system, because it offers forgiveness for anything and everything, and damnation for nothing, with its only factor being acceptance of the religion. It has no moral responsibility at all!
@BigLundi Einstein was not very nice to his kids or grandkids either. Gandhi had a nasty side too. Still, when Jeffrey Dahmer is the competition, well ...
@ozmoroid Again, not disagreeing with you, just pointing something out. Oh! Did you catch that one guy, ThatGuyFromAustria, responding to one of your philos response vids?
@mihungl0 Consent or no, in my moral view, it's never ok to place yourself above others when it comes to rights unless they invade yours first. Especially over something so trivial as gender.
@nazra7 So you think the bible is wrong? God created the heavens and the earth in 7 days, if you believe in Big Bang and evolution then your beliefs contradict. *notes; doesn't take his theories from Ken Hovind* aight, so we have an old earth. Have you even listened to creationist arguments? By taking that stance you've made everything that science takes into account redundant.
Plan B is already there, you have yet to reply to my previous messages.
@vatiz93 "So you think the bible is wrong? God created the heavens and the earth in 7 days"
Assuming that's true is committing the etymological fallacy. The word Yowm can be translated to day, time, age, or any word that references a period of time.
"if you believe in Big Bang and evolution then your beliefs contradict."
The big bang is a precursor to the evolution of the universe. Not contradictory.
@nazra7 "The Big Bang is a precusor to the evolution of the universe. Not contradictory."
How can you mine quote a single comment? That's completely out of context, it's right there: God created the heavens and the earth, ----> IF you believe in Big Bang & evolution your believes (assuming you also believe God created the heavens and the earth) contradict. If not, then youre a phony Christian who chooses what to believe.
@nazra7 mine quoting, or better known as misquoting by taking things out of context. You had my full respect when we started out, but these vague answers and misunderstandings haven't exactly given me your best representation of you. The Bible describes how the God created the earth, not to mention a lot of Christians deny Evolution and Big Bang ever happened. You choose what to believe within the bible, I think I know damn well what I'm talking about, sir.
@nazra7 If you believe anything is false within the Bible, what makes you think it's trustworthy to begin with? That's called faith, even if I pointed to all the evidence in the world you'd still like to create your own version and turn the blind eye to the rest. The named video I sent you shows that in order for Religion to survive, it must change. Even if your personal God did exist, we have a lot of logical and moral fallacies. But maybe I was never a true Christian, what do you know?
@nazra7 Our mind is a powerful thing indeed; your grasp of reality is more or less a delusion I'm afraid. I cannot argue with feelings, people around the globe have the same experience all claiming that it's their personal God, not all of them can be correct. The same could be said about fairy tales, you're like little kids waiting for Santa Claus. Anything that you pick up on must be him, it's nothing more than wishful thinking. You simply want to believe it, that's all there is to it.
@vatiz93 "Our mind is a powerful thing indeed; your grasp of reality is more or less a delusion I'm afraid."
Now you're being arrogant because you do not agree. You don't know even 1% of all in reality, what makes you think I'm delusional? You're trying to say you know what reality is, but you don't because if you did you'd be omniscient.
@nazra7 "what makes you think I'm delusional" Because you believe things without good reason. Your beliefs are not justified nore verifiable. Much like claims about alien abduction, bigfoot, loch ness, godzilla, pink dragons, santa, ...
In what part of my last comment about having faith that the sun would rise had anything to do with feelings? You're just trying to find a scapegoat. Running away from the possible truth. I forgive you though, sometimes the truth can be too much to bare.
@nazra7 "having faith that the sun would rise " Nobody has "faith" that the sun will rise. Everybody has reasonable expectations that it will, based on solid statistical evidence that the sun has been rising for as long as humans can remember.
There is a BIG difference between reasonable expactations and blind faith.
@vatiz93 "You simply want to believe it, that's all there is to it."
You know whats funny, you just said you can't argue with feelings followed by a rant motivated by emotions then simply stating we're wrong period failing to show why we're wrong. This is the definition of denial good sir.
@nazra7 When I said I can't argue with feelings, I truly meant it. Yet you're asking for an argument. <-- The type of thinking I used there is somewhat annoying, now just imagine what you're like. But let's not get tense here, let's just postpone my presupposed emotional rant for the moment. What you just said was a vague attempt to explain why you're a Christian am I right? Also, I'm sure it was meant to say even if science fail to depict God it doesn't mean he doesn't exist. 1 + 1 = 2.
@nazra7 What you fail to realize is that people who aren't religious don't see that Sun rising, what some of them see are freaking UFO's who they claim to have been abducted by! Doesn't that sound crazy to you? My whole point was to show you that people see a different sun rise, and clearly it doesn't show empirical evidence other than hoaxes. But you were right about one thing; I did fail to spell it out to you. Now if you'll excuse me I'll find out what a Red herring is. brb.
@vatiz93 I know describing people like you is crazy. Talking about people seeing ufos and thinking its the sun? Do you feel like the government is after you too?
@nazra7 quote:"what some of them see are freaking UFO's who they claim to have been adbucted by!" - What part of that comment suggested that I believe UFO's even exist? Even added a rhetorical question to emphasize. But I digress, nothing I say to you will get you to start thinking about your own beliefs.
I grew up in a Christian familiy, just last month I became an atheist: I do not blieve there is a God nor do I believe in anything that doesn't have empirical evidence. Back on topic now?
@nazra7 By the same means the invisible pink unicorn may exist, you can't prove it wrong. Just try to reason on why it's absurd, and that's exactly what I'm doing.
@vatiz93 There's a difference between may exist and does exist. Pink unicorns may exist, thats about as far as you can go with that. The argument for God's existence goes much much further.
I don't know why you're still talking about UFO's has it has nothing to do with my original point. That being, you would still have faith the sun would rise over the horizon and turn night into day even if our current understanding of how it happens turned out to be inaccurate.
"What part of that comment suggested that I believe UFO's even exist?"
Never said you thought they existed. I said you thought others think they see ufo's rising instead of the sun. Please give some references to that claim because I just don't believe you. Plus it has nothing to do with what I said about the sun rising everyday being a matter of faith. So all that talk about ufos is a red herring.
@nazra7 At least that clears the troll issue. First off I had to assume you had felt Gods presence in some way or form, to compare anything to that we have other religions. To show you the extent of absurdity, we have UFO sightings even to date (Google is your friend). But to say they've abducted is simply just delusional (by human standard), why doesn't this apply to all religion? It might as well, if not then why Christianity? It's a nasty straw man, you'll see right through it somehow...
@nazra7 To clarify; No, I don't believe in anything that has to do with UFOs. The purpose of the example, which is not as good when you want to go into detail, was to simply show the extent of the absurdity that you may recognize as crazy. Your rhetorical question; "Do you feel like the government is after you too?" also suggests that you're being a hypocrite on the matter, but at least you tried to explain why it was a red herring for once.
@ScientificBob "it's not the atheist's job to show how theists are wrong. "
Then why do you try?
"it's called "the burden of proof"."
Though the burden of proof of God existing falls on those ascending to the assertion that God exists, likewise, the burden of proof falls on those ascending to the proposition that God does not exist, or that theists are "wrong" about their beliefs.
@nazra7 "Then why do you try?" Because they can't seem to keep their irrational beliefs to themselves.
"likewise, the burden of proof falls on those ascending to the proposition that God does not exist"
False. The burden of proof ALWAYS falls on the person who makes the POSITIVE claims. "x doesn't exist" is not a positive claim. Mostly, it's even logically impossible to prove a negative claim.
@ScientificBob "The burden of proof ALWAYS falls on the person who makes the POSITIVE claims."
In reality, if a person came up to you and said "evolution doesn't exist" you'd ask them to justify that belief. It matters not if the proposition is positive or negative, those ascending to a proposition must back it logically in order for their proposition to be considered rational.
But there's a difference between saying "god doesn't exist" and "I reject the argument for god's existence".
@nazra7 "and said "evolution doesn't exist" you'd ask them to justify that belief" yes. because there are +200.000 peer reviewed papers on the subject detailing the evidence.
You see, you DISPROVE something by showing how the proposed evidence in support of said something is invalid. There are +200.000 papers in support of evolution. Biologists have met their burden of proof.
@ScientificBob "Biologists have met their burden of proof. Theists haven't."
The bible is supported by many people around the world, but you wouldn't consider that proof, likewise, essays and studies of evolution is not proof, its evidence, and so far that evidence is standing up to science, but so is many aspects of the Bible, for instance: the ten plaques of Egypt is proven to have happened, but the natural cause was the eruption of Mount San Terini (don't know if that's spelled correctly).
@nazra7 "The bible is supported by many people around the world" Wrong. Many people around the world have blind faith in the bible, which is NOT the same.
"but you wouldn't consider that proof, likewise, essays and studies of evolution is not proof" Again wrong. Believing something is not proof that that something is accurate. Studying something and publishing verifiable results is the exact opposite of having blind faith in some bronze age book.
@nazra7 "the ten plaques of Egypt is proven to have happened" That's a blatant lie. How was this proven? Where? By whom? Where was it published?
"but the natural cause was the eruption of Mount San Terini" Then that would be the OPPOSITE of the 10 plagues. The entire point of the 10 plagues are that it was a SUPERNATURAL event caused by GOD. Last time I've checked, volcano's erupt pretty much every day and are a very natural phenomena.
@ScientificBob But even though the cause of the plagues has not shown to be caused by God scientifically, nevertheless its still shown to have happened, which otherwise no one would believe, just like the Big Bang confirmed the universe had a beginning, and Fine Tuning confirmed that the universe is designed for us to exist, and the fact that where the earth is in the universe is the best place for us to make scientific discoveries also confirms that we have a purpose to exist.
@ScientificBob Though science has not verified that God was the cause of these events, likewise, those 200,000 pages, never has established a verification that natural selection causes evolution, or even that macro evolution exists, or even that evolution explains how species originated. They only show that evolution happens 100% on the micro level, which is basically all you learn from college biology courses. Theists have met their burden of proof just as much as biologists have.
@nazra7 "never has established a verification that natural selection causes evolution" Except that it did. With observed speciation and everything.
"or even that macro evolution exists" 'Macro evolution' is not actual biological jargon. It's a buzzword coined by creationtards who don't know anything about anything. In scientific circles, it means nothing at all. Just like that word "kind".
"evolution explains how species originated" it's called the ORIGIN OF SPECIES dumbass.
@nazra7 "They only show that evolution happens 100% on the micro level" Again, 'micros' is not part of the actual scientific explanations. DNA is a hereditary system. Life reproduces with variation. This variation is filtered through natural selection. Because of DNA being hereditary, this variation (these changes) ACCUMULATE over generations. How do you not walk a mile taking one step at a time?
@ScientificBob But theists also have an advantage, our philosophical proofs proves God's existence deductively, meaning its necessarily true, biology only proves evolution inductively, meaning only probably true. So in reality, according to logic, theists have met their burden of proof at a higher deductive level than biologists.
@nazra7 "meaning its necessarily true" yes, because the bible says so and god says in the bible that the bible is accurate and correct, and god doesn' t lie, because the bible says that god doesn't lie.
"So in reality, according to logic, theists have met their burden of proof at a higher deductive level than biologists"
You must operate with a very weird definition of the word "logic".
Do you even know the meaning of deductive logic? It has nothing to do with the bible. A deductive argument proves logically that something is necessarily true given the truth of the premises, not because the Bible said so, because logic said so.
"You must operate with a very weird definition of the word "logic"."
Take a college logic course like I'm doing now, get an A in it, then tell me how weird it is ok?
@nazra7 "A deductive argument proves logically that something is necessarily true given the truth of the premises"
Let me show you how you are wrong. Please give me this so-called "deductive logic" and, more specifically, these magical premises that somehow prove your god.
"Take a college logic course like I'm doing now" I'm a software engineer. Logic is what I do.
That made me laugh. Here's a quote from the Department of Psychology in the University of Utah regarding deductive logic: "With deduction you can provide absolute proof of your conclusions, given that your premises are correct."
Google that with quotes, then try to tell me how wrong I am about that.
@nazra7 "With deduction you can provide absolute proof of your conclusions, GIVEN THAT YOUR PREMISES ARE CORRECT"
I'm not arguing against deductive logic itself. I'm arguing against the brainfarts known as arguments for god. This is why I asked you for your argument itself, and "more specifically, these magical premises that somehow prove your god".
@BigLundi This is funny. You're trying to say every logician professor in the world is wrong about the rules of logic because of an appeal to authority? Truly amusing. Maybe you should check out a book explaining the history and development of modern logic starting with Aristotelian logic. Its not so, just because they say so.
@nazra7 "Every logician professor in the world" No no no no no. You said the department of psychology in the University of Utah.
And besides that, did you listen to the "Given that your premises are correct" part of that? Have you demonstrated that all of your premises are correct and logically lead to the existence of God? Methinks not.
@nazra7 "But there's a difference between saying "god doesn't exist" and "I reject the argument for god's existence"."
Technically, yes. But in terms of practical and usefull knowledge, not really. Suppose I would claim that there is an invisible rock in the middle of the road and that I know this because a fairy told me. You'ld reject that argument (and thus also my claim). On said road, you will NOT hit your breaks. Because you will operate under the assumption that there is no rock.
@ScientificBob Then what you're saying is that you reject the argument for God's existence, but still not ascending to the proposition that God doesn't exist, in other words, if I can prove it then you'll believe right? In this case, there's no burden of proof on you, but only in the case that you ascend to the proposition that God does not exist, in such a case you'd expect others to believe that proposition, the burden of proof then would fall on you.
@nazra7 "but still not ascending to the proposition that God doesn't exist" Why would I run around claiming "x doesn't exist"? That seems completely pointless to me. Especially when X is not clearly defined by others first.
"if I can prove it then you'll believe right" Absolutely. Not accepting that which is demonstrably correct is obviously irrational and pointless.
"there's no burden of proof on you" The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the proposer of the positive claim, no matter what I say
@nazra7 "in such a case you'd expect others to believe that proposition"
You're still not getting it. Atheism doesn't require you to believe something.
You need to believe something to be a theist.
Do you have a burden of proof to deny Santa? or is the burden of proof rather on the one proposing that santa exists? I assume you operate from the assumption that santa does NOT exist? Why exactly? Can you prove it?
@nazra7 "Did you ever considered HOW he created earth" The 'how' is not detailed in genesis (what a surprise). What IS detailed in genesis is the order. Twice (and strangely enough, they contradict eachother).
It says night/day existed before the earth and the sun. It says the earth existed before the sun. it says light existed before stars.
Stop reverting to the "god of the gaps" position: cowering behind questions not YET explained by science but as science advances there will soon be know where left to hide.
then we wouldnt interpret such a signal as a sign of intelligence..haha nice thought then why are you thinking so hard to rationalize it..where did your thought come from..is from the small dot and explode or in a depth darkness..
I'm regularly astounded by what id/creationists consider to be thought provoking questions. I'm not a fan of making video responses, and i usually can't get my point across in 500 characters that youtube allows in the comments section. So i guess thanks for doing it for me. My answers would have most certainly been different in delivery and specific content, but you got the ideas across exactly as i would have tried to do.
So thanks for being the voice of reason in a cloud of superstition.
@nazra7 Nothing + Big Bang does not correspond to any scientific theory I am aware of. On the other hand "Energy + Laws of Physics + Big Bang" makes more sense than "[supernatural entity of your choice] + Big Bang."
@nazra7 Nope. The preference for simplicity is Occam's razor, and it's a fundamental part of science. My point is that we have evidence for energy and the laws of physics and the Big Bang. We don't have evidence for God.
@ozmoroid If something is simple that doesn't make it true.
"My point is that we have evidence for energy and the laws of physics and the Big Bang. We don't have evidence for God."
We don't have evidence for natural selection either. But we have evidence for changes in gene frequency over time. So you have to come up with a theory as to how that happens.
Just as you have to come up with a theory how the big bang and the laws of physics came out of nothing.
I know there's a law in physics that says things within an isolated system can't change themselves. Only things outside of the system can change it. I don't remember what that law was called but I think this pretty much proves there was something timeless, spaceless, and powerful enough to be outside the universe bringing it into existence along with space, time, and the laws of physics.
Uh.. Appealing to simplicity isn't a logical fallacy? Why is it that creotards like you think that you can just put appeal before anything and claim that it's a fallacy?
your argument is baseless because you fail to address how God came to exist. Nothing + Nothing = God? How is that more plausible than Nothing + Big Bang = The universe? (According to your argument)
We aren't stating, "Because it's simple automatically means it is true." We are stating that simplicity is USUALLY the correct answer so it is better to pick a simpler answer rather than a more complex one if you have no evidence in favor of either.
"1 I'm not a creationist. 2, ad hominens are also a logical fallacy."
It's not an ad hominem. I'm not saying you're wrong or your argument is wrong because you're a creotard. And yes. If you disbelieve evolution and the big bang...
Ad hominems are only ad hominems when they are meant to replace an argument. For example. Just because I called you an idiot does not mean you are wrong. It does not refute your argument. My creotard comment was not refuting anything. Insult yes. Logical fallacy, unfortunately no.
Actually I'm intellectually superior to you because I'm intellectually superior as demonstrated by our conversation.
On your second part of the post. That's what I said. Just in different words. In order for something to be an ad hominem, it must be in the form of an argument or a rebuttal to an argument in replace of any actual argument.
@nazra7 I agree, religious people are just misinformed. However, the more educated people get the higher the possibility it is that they will question their faith and come with a conclution that requires empirical evidence. Most religious people just haven't taken that stance of trying to find the truth, in some cases instead of trying to be correct. That is where the stupidity lies, otherwise they are just like the rest of us. They have potential, but are just too stubborn atm.
@vatiz93 "However, the more educated people get the higher the possibility it is that they will question their faith and come with a conclution that requires empirical evidence."
Proof does not only come in the form of empirical evidence, and many higher educated people find all sorts of evidence for God's existence, after questioning it of course.
@nazra7 Care to give me any examples? If not could you just define what you mean by having proff that does not "only" come in the form of empirical evidence?
Fine tuning, Hubble's law, Hartshorne's and Plantiga's ontological arguments, DNA codes, archeological evidence for biblical events such as the plagues in Egypt which most were cause by the eruption of the Santorini volcano, and the flood of Noah, which Noah's ark had been discovered in Mount Ararat, check out some videos of the Chinese expeditions there on youtube, and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, pure brimstone can be found there today +more
@nazra7 I take it you are a creationist, meaning you don't believe in evoluton or Big Bang. Wouldn't that be an issue? You mentioned the flood of Noah which means you believe in a young earth, interesting, I'll just pose one question: What makes you think psuedo scientists are more trustworthy than scientists with a real degree?
I'm sorry, but could you spesifically point out what you mean by: "Proff does not only come in the form of empirical evidence"? By defintion that doesn't make sense.
@vatiz93 "I'm sorry, but could you specifically point out what you mean by: "Proff does not only come in the form of empirical evidence"?"
That's alright. Empirical evidence is observable evidence, maybe I'm wrong about that. What I was trying to say is physics gives unobservable evidence, so does philosophy. So not all evidence has to be observable.
@nazra7 Observable evidence? Wouldn't you say data is one of them? Philosophy is about thinking, it's not supposed to bring evidence to the table. In science you're supposed to start with an hypothysis and comes up with conclution through observation and knowledge on various subjects. During this processes you must try to prove it wrong, and defend your hypophysis or new conclution with some reason to think its valid. Apologists on the other hand; just wants to be right.
@nazra7 Philosophy regulary deals with morality and different religious viewpoints, it often takes information into account like holy scriptures and their stories and message. Through science and modern day thinking we have accumalted information that tells us otherwise, if your personal God did exist then why would he decieve with this mountain of evidence for an old earth, evolution, and arguments for the big bang? History has taught us religion itself is a naive, manipulating, hypocrite.
@nazra7@nazra7 Ask yourself, why Christianity? Maybe you were indoctrinated, maybe you had friends who wanted you to become a part of the church. In the end, you have people who just can't get themselves to be expected to believe in something with blind faith. These people who 'God' knew would become atheists, meaning there is no free will, will burn in your sadistic fantasies forever. I recommend a video for a my next argument: "3.3.3 Atheism: A History of God (Part 1)".
@verzen "How is that more plausible than Nothing + Big Bang = The universe?"
Because, nothing has no material to work with. And without a conscious will, even if there was material in the singularity, because of the conservation law, nothing inside the isolated system (which is inside the singularity) can change it.
Think of it this way: When sugar in a glass of water reaches equilibrium and is not touched, it remains in equilibrium, unchanging, unless something outside the cub influences it.
If you understood space time, nothing does have something to work with because 1 matter and 1 anti-matter have a net energy level of zero. That means that our universe has a net energy level of zero. When matter and anti-matter come apart, they create something to work with. I know it is a difficult concept to understand. But research the science please.
The universe may not be an isolated system. And besides, we don't know what created the universe. I'm honest enough to say that. What we do know is what we find after the planck period. We can trace the beginnings back to that time. Plus, elements within the universe change and alter all the time. Hydrogen continuously becomes helium in a star for example.
@verzen "The universe may not be an isolated system"
Thats pure speculation and would require a lot of faith to believe so. Something you despise. All the evidence we have is that before the big bang there was a singularity and nothing existed outside of it.
"Plus, elements within the universe change and alter all the time."
No, not the poisson gas! x^k * e^-k /k! people will die! Minor nitpick there is a crime that cannot be forgiven - blaspheming the holy spirit. So if I you have a choice of saying bad things about something that probably doesn't exist or murder, the Christians say do the murder.
@newperve As you can see, spelling was never my strong suit. On the other hand, "The Poison Equation" does grab one's attention. A bit more dramatic, no?
I really don't care what christians say there bases for life comes from a primitive book with anti-human beliefs that they choose to deny and only feed you the good stuff from the new testament. To me its pure ignorants to deny all the negative info in the old testament and its dishonest to ones self to choose to look the other way because they made a new testament. Christianity,Islam suck at bringing man together for piece and fails over and over what more proof do you need idiots.
6:42 "If not for God, what would keep people from murdering their babies for food?"
Jeremiah 19.9 "I [God] will make them eat the flesh of their sons and daughters, and they will eat one another’s flesh because their enemies will press the siege so hard against them to destroy them."
Uh... maybe Satan? Yeah, I think Satan will keep people from murdering their own babies for food. I think Christians are on the wrong side with this 'God' guy.
rkyeun 1 month ago
nice job Oz!
eastjones 1 month ago
@eastjones Thank you.
ozmoroid 1 month ago
dude you rock...
virgilxoxo1 2 months ago
@virgilxoxo1 Thanks.
ozmoroid 2 months ago
@selenadelos Thanks. In large measure Christians are "moral" because they define morality as equivalent to being Christian. I never realized how prevalent this was until I got on Youtube.
ozmoroid 5 months ago
How you can say "big bang" is supported by evidence is beyond me, it's basically the genesis myth from the bible. Big bang believers are no better than christains.
fertilizerspike 5 months ago
@fertilizerspike How can I say that the Big Bang is supported by evidence? Because it's true. Observed Hubble redshift. Observed cosmic microwave background radiation. Observed relative abundance of H vs. He in universe.
ozmoroid 5 months ago
@ozmoroid
The "Hubble redshift" is not evidence of "big bang". A full explanation lies outside the scope of a YouTube comments. Check Arp's research on "redshift" as an intrinsic property of celestial objects, not an indicator of either distance or recessional velocity. CMBR was not predicted by "big bang", and the properties of the observed microwave "background" preclude "big bang" unless the Earth is in the center of the universe, clearly preposterous.
fertilizerspike 5 months ago
@fertilizerspike
One more thing about "CMBR", big bang believers ventured many guesses, virtually all of which were wrong by an order of magnitude. This was seen as a "success" by big bang believers. Every error they make is proof (in their eyes) that their beliefs are true. When the evidence blatantly falsifies their beliefs, they invent a new force or particle to take up the slack and explain their errors away.
fertilizerspike 5 months ago
@fertilizerspike CMBR was not predicted by the Big Bang theory? Wow, that's a pretty clueless statement. Of course it was.
ozmoroid 5 months ago
@ozmoroid said:
"CMBR was not predicted by the Big Bang theory? Wow, that's a pretty clueless statement. Of course it was."
Feel free to back this up. Who predicted it and when? When was it discovered?
fertilizerspike 5 months ago
@fertilizerspike Predicted by George Gamow (and others) in 1948. Observed in 1964. You are really a flake spewing foolishness. Spew all you want. Your posts aren't worth the time they take to read.
ozmoroid 5 months ago
@ozmoroid
"But George Gamow, credited with the prediction from Big Bang assumptions, estimated 5K in 1948. In the 1950s he raised that estimate to 10K, and by 1961 he was predicting 50K."
This is just one example of the predicted "temperature" of the universe, Gamow first guessed 5K, then 10K, then steadily upward until he got to 50K. Dozens of astronogers made similar guesses. He did not predict "CMBR", he predicted the "temperature" of the universe. Further, evidence suggests CMBR is local.
fertilizerspike 5 months ago
@ozmoroid
"The first astronomer to collect observations from which the temperature of space could be calculated was Andrew McKellar. In 1941 he announced a temperature of 2.3K from radiative excitation of certain molecules."
So we see, even with DIRECT OBSERVATIONS of the "temperature" of the universe, Gamow and others still guessed wildly wrong. They were utterly ignorant of these observations that already proved their guesses wrong. McKeller's claim fits well without "big bang" assumptions.
fertilizerspike 5 months ago
@ozmoroid
Oh, also, eat my shit, you dumb mother fucker. Clearly you don't have a fucking clue what the hell you're talking about. As I stated previously, it's obvious you guessed right about god by accident, because you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to science, and in particular astronomy. All you have is a head full of astronoger fables that you've swallowed wholesale.
fertilizerspike 5 months ago
@fertilizerspike I've made videos that required the application of actual science & math (e.g., orbital simulations). You do not. Until you actually generate some content demonstrating some scientific understanding, you are just a ranting lunatic.
ozmoroid 5 months ago
@ozmoroid
I haven't seen all of your videos, but of the ones I've seen, they seem like nothing more than masturbatory hit pieces on christains. Talk about shooting fish in a barrel. I don't really think you're qualified to defend your absurd beliefs regarding astronomy, or you'd be doing so, instead of issuing superfluous "challenges" to somebody who's only tried to correct your errors. Wallow in your ignorance, I don't really care. You haven't significantly challenged any of my claims.
fertilizerspike 5 months ago
@fertilizerspike I love it when whack jobs like you start spewing statements like "eat my shit, you dumb mother fucker." It's FAIL at so profound a level. I can almost see the drool running down your chin. Ignorance like yours is one of things that motivate me to make science videos. Heck, I might even make a video about it!
ozmoroid 5 months ago
@ozmoroid
Don't project your drooling onto me. What makes you think you produce "science videos"? You're the one who's ignorant. You seem to only be capable of being right by accident. Again, you haven't offered any significant challenge to any of my claims.
fertilizerspike 5 months ago
@ozmoroid
Hydrogen and helium abundances also are not evidence supporting "big bang", the observed abundances were retrofitted into "big bang". That's what cosmonogers do, they claim that every observation supports "big bang". When it doesn't, they invent new particles or bodies ("black hole", "WIMP", "MACHO", "dark matter", "dark energy") to make up the difference and explain the errors away. Big bang is an absurc creationist myth, it's essentially the genesis myth from the bible, utter crap.
fertilizerspike 5 months ago
@ozmoroid
One more thing about "redshift", if you examine the virgo cluster and app11ly "redshift = distance = velocity" assumptions, we conclude that the virgo cluster is arranged in two long "fingers of god" pointing directly at Earth. Geocentric universe, anyone? Clearly this is absurd. Most of what is taught as astronomy is bunk, never verified by any experiment (fundamental to science), just a collection of fables astronogers tell each other, no better than astrology.
fertilizerspike 5 months ago
@ozmoroid
I think what bothers me most about your apparent belief in "big bang" and your attempts to defend it is that it mirrors virtually every creation myth from every known human culture. That you don't see this is testament to your inability to actually distinguish science from bunk. This leads me to believe you only came down on the right side of religion due to accident. Perhaps you hated some christains in school and now as an adult you've made it your mission to mock them. Well whatever
fertilizerspike 5 months ago
evolution does not disprove the existence of a creator. It may be supported as a tool of intelligent deisgn in which a high power ordered organisms to operate. And the big bang (theory) does the same..And yes I know "the world being created in 6 days" isnt viable. But evolution and the big bang (theory) are not the END GAME analysis.
TheYoungTurds1 6 months ago
@TheYoungTurds1 Exactly as you said, "may be". And you seem to have misunderstood the scientific meaning of "theory". In science, a theory is a part of fact and vice versa. Think of a fact as a word in a dictionary and a theory as the explanation for that word. The Big Bang is real and very much a fact, but nobody goes "Big Bang Fact" because informed individuals already know it's a fact. It's a "Big Bang Theory", because it's the explanation of the origin of our universe. Duh...
hubbabubbarubbalubba 6 months ago
Er notice these ''questions for atheists'' video presenters look so slimey and arrogant.
Every single damn one of them.
''hur hur. I'm not a scientists but these god hating evilutionists won't be able to answer my idiotic and fallacious arguments! HUR DUR HUR HUR''
Primordialfan1 6 months ago
So there is no evidence to support a creator? What is the purpose of the existence of RNA? Life, the answer given is not logical. It just diverts from the point of the question. (what came first, the chicken or the egg?) LOL nice try though. Evolution explains the development of complexity since they has been no observation of anything becoming more complex. No man could ever be good enough nor could man earn his way to heaven. God died for the whole world, JD included.
gallantentry 8 months ago
@gallantentry You might want to read up on current abiogenesis research ... and current microbiology research regarding evolution.
ozmoroid 8 months ago
@ozmoroid There is no evidence and the proponents re: agiogenesis is far fetched at best. Most scientists have accepted the redundancy involved in such a preposterous suggestion. Life cannot even be manufactured in a controlled lab let alone in a hostile environment. It's sad to see science turn a blind eye to the probability of ID. Personally I think Darwin would have long since abandoned his own idea especially under the mere assumption of Irreducible Complexity....
gallantentry 8 months ago
@gallantentry "Most scientists have accepted ..." Any evidence for that claim? Look for szostakweb on the harvard university website. Jack Szostak is a Nobel Laureate whose lab has made great strides in developing self-replicating and evolving complex chemical systems.
ozmoroid 8 months ago
@ozmoroid ...machines do not design themselves especially ones that can self replicate! Engineers have to learn their science and then apply it to create a design. That is common sense. Sometimes brilliance washes out good ole horse sense to which btw, will get someone much further than learnedness.
gallantentry 8 months ago
@gallantentry maybe they are not machines They are molecules. Its the same argument that says
ooooooooo the DNA has all this information NO these are termed so that it becomes easier to study For example 'A' for adenine will make it easier to study than calling it adenosine triphosphate or drawing the molecular structure There is plenty of research done in this field. try searching "pubmed" As somebody who does research (in a different field) it is painful when someone calls our lifes work a lie
mignik01 7 months ago
@gallantentry and please the next time when u say something like "most scientists accept such and such is very far fetched", please leave a source because thats the way science works.
There have been observed instances where single cellular organisms turned multi cellular, with in 100 generations in a lab when appropriate selection pressures were introduced.
Machines dont design themselves. For eg. if a particular formation of chemicals provides them with an advantage, they are selected. contd.
mignik01 7 months ago
@mignik01 If you want the facts badly enough, you will do the research unbiased. I cannot possibly post in a small comment box all known related material I use, but leave it to the discretion of the reader to do his/her own homework. However, it is a fact. Google is a good way to start. Read both sides and don't allow your emotions to dictate what is factual and what isn't. It will not retain respect. People choose to believe what they do typically because of their emotional involvement.
gallantentry 7 months ago
@gallantentry I do research although in a different field and let me tell you, google can be your worst enemy. people tend to write down anything that comes in their minds in google. There is no fact checking process. Just type in "why glass is transparent?'" and you will see "both sides of the argument" or type in "Evidence supporting flat earth theory" and you will see "both sides of the argument".
mignik01 7 months ago
Contd. And sometimes, infact most of the times, common sense often stands in your way than be of any use. What does our common sense say about quantum tunneling or superposition of states or wave function of an electron. U simply cannot address a room full of scientists and say "its common sense right".
Now maybe u r right. I fully accept but, the reasons that you or most of the creationists put forward are not enough to back up ur claim. contd.
mignik01 7 months ago
contd. The only scientific claim that was put forward against evolution that i'm aware of is, irreducible complexity. Scientists atleast had to do some work to put it down. Do some research like that.
mignik01 7 months ago
@mignik01 You can'y disprove a negative. Evolution has no proof and IC has not been 'put down' as to be ignored. The truth is, all microbiology disproves evolution. There is no case study or proof of anything macro-evolving. Plant life is a great example. Look it up.
gallantentry 7 months ago
@gallantentry evolution has been the most tested theory in the history of science. Not because of the controversy, its what holds biology together. its the central theory in biology. it helps hold together separate fields of biology including microbiology. Again source for your claims.
Wouldn't you consider evolution from single cell to multi cellular as "macro evolutions". . I just searched "observed instances of speciation" in pubmed and got 1038 hits from one of its sources.
mignik01 7 months ago
@mignik01 "evolution has been the most tested theory in the history of science." How can we test it if we have no proof of it? Not possible! Evolution is a hoax and propagates ignorance. Evolution makes money and is a proponent to those who would deny the existence of an ID. People would rather deny there's a God than be honest with themselves(and others) about the failing theory of evolution. with every knew discovery comes a new problem with the theory. It's a lie.
gallantentry 7 months ago
@gallantentry I'll tell you how to test a theory. Evolution says we should be able to find transitional forms of species. about a year after darwin published it we found archeoptryx lithographica Evolution says we need to find a mechanism for natural selection to act on, some more than half a century later, we find the DNA. Evolution says we should still have the genes of ancestoral species in us, ofcourse we have, we have genes to make tail and thick body hair. chickens have genes to make teeth
mignik01 7 months ago
@gallantentry science is agnostic. it doesnt comment about the existence of a creator or anything supernatural. I'll tell you what happens when that is not followed. Issac newton could not explain the stability of the solar system with his theory, and he invoked god. it took a century and a half for Laplace to come along and replace it with pertubation theory. Newton could've done that but he didn't. he gave it to an ID.
mignik01 7 months ago
@gallantentry There hasnt been a single observation that shakes the pillars of biology. NONE. enlighten me. provide the sources. just type in the link. I have seen every single one of the creationist argument. U cannot make a statement that is not backed up by evidence.
mignik01 7 months ago
@gallantentry Evolution facts
There are 250,000 plus published(in main stream scientific journals), peer reviewed(in main stream scientific journals) scientific papers on evolution, in the past 150 years. Yet you say you can disprove it. Please post the published (main stream media), peer reviewed paper that will change the scientific world.
wizard970 6 months ago
@gallantentry you need to look up Chaos Theory. A sippet from Wikipedia's Chaos thory page: "In 1987, Per Bak, Chao Tang and Kurt Wiesenfeld published a paper in Physical Review Letters[58] describing for the first time self-organized criticality (SOC), considered to be one of the mechanisms by which complexity arises in nature."
grisflyt 6 months ago
Poisson gas is French for "Fish Gas", which I find very amusing. But I agree whole-heartedly with that point about Christianity: It has far less claim to absolute morality than ANY other belief system, because it offers forgiveness for anything and everything, and damnation for nothing, with its only factor being acceptance of the religion. It has no moral responsibility at all!
GoblinXXX 9 months ago
@GoblinXXX someone can be forgiven and still be punished. Your assumption about Christianity is wrong.
gallantentry 7 months ago
@gallantentry Do Christians forgiven of their sins go to Heaven or not? If so, where is the punishment?
ozmoroid 7 months ago
@gallantentry Hmm. Ok, so are you saying Christians still go to hell? Want to point me to chapter and verse that even SUGGESTS that in the bible?
GoblinXXX 7 months ago
While I'm on your side here, understand, Albert Einstein WAS a bit of a douchebag, did you hear about all his womanizing?
BigLundi 10 months ago
@BigLundi Einstein was not very nice to his kids or grandkids either. Gandhi had a nasty side too. Still, when Jeffrey Dahmer is the competition, well ...
ozmoroid 10 months ago
@ozmoroid Again, not disagreeing with you, just pointing something out. Oh! Did you catch that one guy, ThatGuyFromAustria, responding to one of your philos response vids?
BigLundi 10 months ago
@BigLundi what is wrong with womanizing? Especially when those women gave him consent?
mihungl0 9 months ago
@mihungl0 Consent or no, in my moral view, it's never ok to place yourself above others when it comes to rights unless they invade yours first. Especially over something so trivial as gender.
BigLundi 9 months ago
Brilliant.
LesPaul2006 11 months ago
"I take it you are a creationist, meaning you don't believe in evoluton or Big Bang."
I believe in the big bang. I'm not sure about evolution but I think its much probable than young earth creation.
"You mentioned the flood of Noah which means you believe in a young earth"
No, it doesn't.
"What makes you think psuedo scientists are more trustworthy than scientistsWhat"
What makes you think one theory is pseudo science? A degree? Thats appeal to authority.
nazra7 1 year ago
@nazra7 So you think the bible is wrong? God created the heavens and the earth in 7 days, if you believe in Big Bang and evolution then your beliefs contradict. *notes; doesn't take his theories from Ken Hovind* aight, so we have an old earth. Have you even listened to creationist arguments? By taking that stance you've made everything that science takes into account redundant.
Plan B is already there, you have yet to reply to my previous messages.
vatiz93 1 year ago
@vatiz93 "So you think the bible is wrong? God created the heavens and the earth in 7 days"
Assuming that's true is committing the etymological fallacy. The word Yowm can be translated to day, time, age, or any word that references a period of time.
"if you believe in Big Bang and evolution then your beliefs contradict."
The big bang is a precursor to the evolution of the universe. Not contradictory.
"you have yet to reply to my previous messages"
I don't have time to reply to everything.
nazra7 1 year ago
@nazra7 "The Big Bang is a precusor to the evolution of the universe. Not contradictory."
How can you mine quote a single comment? That's completely out of context, it's right there: God created the heavens and the earth, ----> IF you believe in Big Bang & evolution your believes (assuming you also believe God created the heavens and the earth) contradict. If not, then youre a phony Christian who chooses what to believe.
"I don't have time to reply to everything"
Then we'll never know, bb.
vatiz93 1 year ago
@vatiz93 "How can you mine quote a single comment?"
Because there's a 250 character limit.
"God created the heavens and the earth"
Did you ever considered HOW he created earth? Possibly with evolution. No contradiction.
"If not, then youre a phony Christian who chooses what to believe."
You don't even understand the meaning of Christianity. You're in no position to say who's a phony Christian. Thanks.
nazra7 1 year ago
@nazra7 mine quoting, or better known as misquoting by taking things out of context. You had my full respect when we started out, but these vague answers and misunderstandings haven't exactly given me your best representation of you. The Bible describes how the God created the earth, not to mention a lot of Christians deny Evolution and Big Bang ever happened. You choose what to believe within the bible, I think I know damn well what I'm talking about, sir.
vatiz93 1 year ago
@nazra7 If you believe anything is false within the Bible, what makes you think it's trustworthy to begin with? That's called faith, even if I pointed to all the evidence in the world you'd still like to create your own version and turn the blind eye to the rest. The named video I sent you shows that in order for Religion to survive, it must change. Even if your personal God did exist, we have a lot of logical and moral fallacies. But maybe I was never a true Christian, what do you know?
vatiz93 1 year ago
@vatiz93 If science did not accurately depict why the sun rise every day, you would still believe the sun would rise every day...
nazra7 1 year ago
@nazra7 Our mind is a powerful thing indeed; your grasp of reality is more or less a delusion I'm afraid. I cannot argue with feelings, people around the globe have the same experience all claiming that it's their personal God, not all of them can be correct. The same could be said about fairy tales, you're like little kids waiting for Santa Claus. Anything that you pick up on must be him, it's nothing more than wishful thinking. You simply want to believe it, that's all there is to it.
vatiz93 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@vatiz93 "Our mind is a powerful thing indeed; your grasp of reality is more or less a delusion I'm afraid."
Now you're being arrogant because you do not agree. You don't know even 1% of all in reality, what makes you think I'm delusional? You're trying to say you know what reality is, but you don't because if you did you'd be omniscient.
nazra7 1 year ago
@nazra7 "what makes you think I'm delusional" Because you believe things without good reason. Your beliefs are not justified nore verifiable. Much like claims about alien abduction, bigfoot, loch ness, godzilla, pink dragons, santa, ...
ScientificBob 10 months ago
@vatiz93
"I cannot argue with feelings"
In what part of my last comment about having faith that the sun would rise had anything to do with feelings? You're just trying to find a scapegoat. Running away from the possible truth. I forgive you though, sometimes the truth can be too much to bare.
nazra7 1 year ago
@nazra7 "having faith that the sun would rise " Nobody has "faith" that the sun will rise. Everybody has reasonable expectations that it will, based on solid statistical evidence that the sun has been rising for as long as humans can remember.
There is a BIG difference between reasonable expactations and blind faith.
ScientificBob 10 months ago
@vatiz93 "people around the globe have the same experience all claiming that it's their personal God not all of them can be correct."
Red herring. And it doesn't mean they're all wrong either.
"The same could be said about fairy tales you're like little kids waiting for Santa Claus."
Another Red herring.
"Anything that you pick up on must be him, it's nothing more than wishful thinking.
More red herrings. Where's your argument that we're wrong?
nazra7 1 year ago
@nazra7 None of these things are red herrings...
Hindu X claims to have had a "personal experience" with Vishnu.
Christian Y claims to have had a "personal experience" with jezus.
Both can't be right, because they are mutually exclusive according to your very own theology.
The reason people bring this up, is to ask how the hell we are to differentiate between both?
Why would anyone believe Y over X or X over Y? Why would anyone believe either of them?
ScientificBob 10 months ago
@vatiz93 "You simply want to believe it, that's all there is to it."
You know whats funny, you just said you can't argue with feelings followed by a rant motivated by emotions then simply stating we're wrong period failing to show why we're wrong. This is the definition of denial good sir.
nazra7 1 year ago
@nazra7 When I said I can't argue with feelings, I truly meant it. Yet you're asking for an argument. <-- The type of thinking I used there is somewhat annoying, now just imagine what you're like. But let's not get tense here, let's just postpone my presupposed emotional rant for the moment. What you just said was a vague attempt to explain why you're a Christian am I right? Also, I'm sure it was meant to say even if science fail to depict God it doesn't mean he doesn't exist. 1 + 1 = 2.
vatiz93 1 year ago
@nazra7 What you fail to realize is that people who aren't religious don't see that Sun rising, what some of them see are freaking UFO's who they claim to have been abducted by! Doesn't that sound crazy to you? My whole point was to show you that people see a different sun rise, and clearly it doesn't show empirical evidence other than hoaxes. But you were right about one thing; I did fail to spell it out to you. Now if you'll excuse me I'll find out what a Red herring is. brb.
vatiz93 1 year ago
@vatiz93 Wow.. you're really starting to sound crazy. I think our conversation is over.
nazra7 1 year ago
@nazra7 You're right, describing people like you is crazy. Sorry if I made you feel uncomfortable.
Oh, and tbfh: that was ironic as hell.
vatiz93 1 year ago
@vatiz93 I know describing people like you is crazy. Talking about people seeing ufos and thinking its the sun? Do you feel like the government is after you too?
nazra7 1 year ago
@nazra7 quote:"what some of them see are freaking UFO's who they claim to have been adbucted by!" - What part of that comment suggested that I believe UFO's even exist? Even added a rhetorical question to emphasize. But I digress, nothing I say to you will get you to start thinking about your own beliefs.
I grew up in a Christian familiy, just last month I became an atheist: I do not blieve there is a God nor do I believe in anything that doesn't have empirical evidence. Back on topic now?
vatiz93 1 year ago
@vatiz93 "I do not blieve there is a God nor do I believe in anything that doesn't have empirical evidence. "
You may not believe in nothing without empirical evidence, but that does not mean a said thing doesn't exist.
nazra7 1 year ago
@nazra7 By the same means the invisible pink unicorn may exist, you can't prove it wrong. Just try to reason on why it's absurd, and that's exactly what I'm doing.
vatiz93 1 year ago
@vatiz93 There's a difference between may exist and does exist. Pink unicorns may exist, thats about as far as you can go with that. The argument for God's existence goes much much further.
I don't know why you're still talking about UFO's has it has nothing to do with my original point. That being, you would still have faith the sun would rise over the horizon and turn night into day even if our current understanding of how it happens turned out to be inaccurate.
nazra7 1 year ago
@nazra7 I call trolls on you, nobody can possibly be that ignorant without doing it on purpose.
vatiz93 1 year ago
@vatiz93 You were doing it too.
"What part of that comment suggested that I believe UFO's even exist?"
Never said you thought they existed. I said you thought others think they see ufo's rising instead of the sun. Please give some references to that claim because I just don't believe you. Plus it has nothing to do with what I said about the sun rising everyday being a matter of faith. So all that talk about ufos is a red herring.
nazra7 1 year ago
@nazra7 At least that clears the troll issue. First off I had to assume you had felt Gods presence in some way or form, to compare anything to that we have other religions. To show you the extent of absurdity, we have UFO sightings even to date (Google is your friend). But to say they've abducted is simply just delusional (by human standard), why doesn't this apply to all religion? It might as well, if not then why Christianity? It's a nasty straw man, you'll see right through it somehow...
vatiz93 1 year ago
@nazra7 To clarify; No, I don't believe in anything that has to do with UFOs. The purpose of the example, which is not as good when you want to go into detail, was to simply show the extent of the absurdity that you may recognize as crazy. Your rhetorical question; "Do you feel like the government is after you too?" also suggests that you're being a hypocrite on the matter, but at least you tried to explain why it was a red herring for once.
vatiz93 1 year ago
@nazra7 "failing to show why we're wrong" it's not the atheist's job to show how theists are wrong. it's the theist's job to show how they are right.
it's called "the burden of proof".
ScientificBob 10 months ago
@ScientificBob "it's not the atheist's job to show how theists are wrong. "
Then why do you try?
"it's called "the burden of proof"."
Though the burden of proof of God existing falls on those ascending to the assertion that God exists, likewise, the burden of proof falls on those ascending to the proposition that God does not exist, or that theists are "wrong" about their beliefs.
nazra7 10 months ago
@nazra7 "Then why do you try?" Because they can't seem to keep their irrational beliefs to themselves.
"likewise, the burden of proof falls on those ascending to the proposition that God does not exist"
False. The burden of proof ALWAYS falls on the person who makes the POSITIVE claims. "x doesn't exist" is not a positive claim. Mostly, it's even logically impossible to prove a negative claim.
ScientificBob 10 months ago
@ScientificBob "The burden of proof ALWAYS falls on the person who makes the POSITIVE claims."
In reality, if a person came up to you and said "evolution doesn't exist" you'd ask them to justify that belief. It matters not if the proposition is positive or negative, those ascending to a proposition must back it logically in order for their proposition to be considered rational.
But there's a difference between saying "god doesn't exist" and "I reject the argument for god's existence".
nazra7 10 months ago
@nazra7 "and said "evolution doesn't exist" you'd ask them to justify that belief" yes. because there are +200.000 peer reviewed papers on the subject detailing the evidence.
You see, you DISPROVE something by showing how the proposed evidence in support of said something is invalid. There are +200.000 papers in support of evolution. Biologists have met their burden of proof.
Theists haven't.
ScientificBob 10 months ago
@ScientificBob "Biologists have met their burden of proof. Theists haven't."
The bible is supported by many people around the world, but you wouldn't consider that proof, likewise, essays and studies of evolution is not proof, its evidence, and so far that evidence is standing up to science, but so is many aspects of the Bible, for instance: the ten plaques of Egypt is proven to have happened, but the natural cause was the eruption of Mount San Terini (don't know if that's spelled correctly).
nazra7 10 months ago
@nazra7 "The bible is supported by many people around the world" Wrong. Many people around the world have blind faith in the bible, which is NOT the same.
"but you wouldn't consider that proof, likewise, essays and studies of evolution is not proof" Again wrong. Believing something is not proof that that something is accurate. Studying something and publishing verifiable results is the exact opposite of having blind faith in some bronze age book.
ScientificBob 10 months ago
@nazra7 "the ten plaques of Egypt is proven to have happened" That's a blatant lie. How was this proven? Where? By whom? Where was it published?
"but the natural cause was the eruption of Mount San Terini" Then that would be the OPPOSITE of the 10 plagues. The entire point of the 10 plagues are that it was a SUPERNATURAL event caused by GOD. Last time I've checked, volcano's erupt pretty much every day and are a very natural phenomena.
ScientificBob 10 months ago
@ScientificBob But even though the cause of the plagues has not shown to be caused by God scientifically, nevertheless its still shown to have happened, which otherwise no one would believe, just like the Big Bang confirmed the universe had a beginning, and Fine Tuning confirmed that the universe is designed for us to exist, and the fact that where the earth is in the universe is the best place for us to make scientific discoveries also confirms that we have a purpose to exist.
nazra7 10 months ago
@nazra7 "nevertheless its still shown to have happened" No, it's not.
"just like the Big Bang confirmed the universe had a beginning" The universe as we know it, that is.
"and Fine Tuning confirmed that the universe is designed for us to exist" False. Brainfarts don't confirm anything.
"the earth is in the universe is the best place for us " another complete bullshit argument. how is this place different from another galaxy?
ScientificBob 10 months ago
@ScientificBob Though science has not verified that God was the cause of these events, likewise, those 200,000 pages, never has established a verification that natural selection causes evolution, or even that macro evolution exists, or even that evolution explains how species originated. They only show that evolution happens 100% on the micro level, which is basically all you learn from college biology courses. Theists have met their burden of proof just as much as biologists have.
nazra7 10 months ago
@nazra7 "never has established a verification that natural selection causes evolution" Except that it did. With observed speciation and everything.
"or even that macro evolution exists" 'Macro evolution' is not actual biological jargon. It's a buzzword coined by creationtards who don't know anything about anything. In scientific circles, it means nothing at all. Just like that word "kind".
"evolution explains how species originated" it's called the ORIGIN OF SPECIES dumbass.
ScientificBob 10 months ago
@nazra7 "They only show that evolution happens 100% on the micro level" Again, 'micros' is not part of the actual scientific explanations. DNA is a hereditary system. Life reproduces with variation. This variation is filtered through natural selection. Because of DNA being hereditary, this variation (these changes) ACCUMULATE over generations. How do you not walk a mile taking one step at a time?
ScientificBob 10 months ago
@nazra7 ""Theists have met their burden of proof just as much as biologists have"" In your dreams maybe.
ScientificBob 10 months ago
@ScientificBob But theists also have an advantage, our philosophical proofs proves God's existence deductively, meaning its necessarily true, biology only proves evolution inductively, meaning only probably true. So in reality, according to logic, theists have met their burden of proof at a higher deductive level than biologists.
nazra7 10 months ago
@nazra7 "meaning its necessarily true" yes, because the bible says so and god says in the bible that the bible is accurate and correct, and god doesn' t lie, because the bible says that god doesn't lie.
"So in reality, according to logic, theists have met their burden of proof at a higher deductive level than biologists"
You must operate with a very weird definition of the word "logic".
ScientificBob 10 months ago
@ScientificBob "yes, because the bible says so"
Do you even know the meaning of deductive logic? It has nothing to do with the bible. A deductive argument proves logically that something is necessarily true given the truth of the premises, not because the Bible said so, because logic said so.
"You must operate with a very weird definition of the word "logic"."
Take a college logic course like I'm doing now, get an A in it, then tell me how weird it is ok?
nazra7 10 months ago
@nazra7 "A deductive argument proves logically that something is necessarily true given the truth of the premises"
Let me show you how you are wrong. Please give me this so-called "deductive logic" and, more specifically, these magical premises that somehow prove your god.
"Take a college logic course like I'm doing now" I'm a software engineer. Logic is what I do.
ScientificBob 10 months ago
@ScientificBob "Let me show you how you are wrong."
That made me laugh. Here's a quote from the Department of Psychology in the University of Utah regarding deductive logic: "With deduction you can provide absolute proof of your conclusions, given that your premises are correct."
Google that with quotes, then try to tell me how wrong I am about that.
nazra7 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nazra7 "With deduction you can provide absolute proof of your conclusions, GIVEN THAT YOUR PREMISES ARE CORRECT"
I'm not arguing against deductive logic itself. I'm arguing against the brainfarts known as arguments for god. This is why I asked you for your argument itself, and "more specifically, these magical premises that somehow prove your god".
So please, share your "evidence".
ScientificBob 10 months ago
@nazra7 Can you say...appeal to authority?
BigLundi 10 months ago
@BigLundi This is funny. You're trying to say every logician professor in the world is wrong about the rules of logic because of an appeal to authority? Truly amusing. Maybe you should check out a book explaining the history and development of modern logic starting with Aristotelian logic. Its not so, just because they say so.
nazra7 10 months ago
@nazra7 "Every logician professor in the world" No no no no no. You said the department of psychology in the University of Utah.
And besides that, did you listen to the "Given that your premises are correct" part of that? Have you demonstrated that all of your premises are correct and logically lead to the existence of God? Methinks not.
BigLundi 10 months ago
@BigLundi Go find some logician that would disagree with that definition of deductive logic, then we will talk.
"did you listen to the "Given that your premises are correct" part of that?"
Did you not listen when I said "given the truth of the premises"?
"all of your premises are correct and logically lead to the existence of God?"
We were talking about the definition of deductive logic. Understand the conversation before putting your two cents in please and thanks.
nazra7 10 months ago
@nazra7 ...My bad. I'm used to debates about god's existence being given. I'm going to go over here to the corner now.
BigLundi 10 months ago
@BigLundi I'm sorry if that sounded harsh. Limited characters means I'm limited on what I can say. Please don't take it personal.
nazra7 10 months ago
@nazra7 "But there's a difference between saying "god doesn't exist" and "I reject the argument for god's existence"."
Technically, yes. But in terms of practical and usefull knowledge, not really. Suppose I would claim that there is an invisible rock in the middle of the road and that I know this because a fairy told me. You'ld reject that argument (and thus also my claim). On said road, you will NOT hit your breaks. Because you will operate under the assumption that there is no rock.
ScientificBob 10 months ago
@ScientificBob Then what you're saying is that you reject the argument for God's existence, but still not ascending to the proposition that God doesn't exist, in other words, if I can prove it then you'll believe right? In this case, there's no burden of proof on you, but only in the case that you ascend to the proposition that God does not exist, in such a case you'd expect others to believe that proposition, the burden of proof then would fall on you.
nazra7 10 months ago
@nazra7 "but still not ascending to the proposition that God doesn't exist" Why would I run around claiming "x doesn't exist"? That seems completely pointless to me. Especially when X is not clearly defined by others first.
"if I can prove it then you'll believe right" Absolutely. Not accepting that which is demonstrably correct is obviously irrational and pointless.
"there's no burden of proof on you" The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the proposer of the positive claim, no matter what I say
ScientificBob 10 months ago
@nazra7 "in such a case you'd expect others to believe that proposition"
You're still not getting it. Atheism doesn't require you to believe something.
You need to believe something to be a theist.
Do you have a burden of proof to deny Santa? or is the burden of proof rather on the one proposing that santa exists? I assume you operate from the assumption that santa does NOT exist? Why exactly? Can you prove it?
ScientificBob 10 months ago
@nazra7 "Did you ever considered HOW he created earth" The 'how' is not detailed in genesis (what a surprise). What IS detailed in genesis is the order. Twice (and strangely enough, they contradict eachother).
It says night/day existed before the earth and the sun. It says the earth existed before the sun. it says light existed before stars.
None of this is compatible with the big bang.
ScientificBob 10 months ago
I absolutely loved this video!
bttrflykiss7701 1 year ago
@bttrflykiss7701 Thanks!
ozmoroid 1 year ago
Stop reverting to the "god of the gaps" position: cowering behind questions not YET explained by science but as science advances there will soon be know where left to hide.
kiemul136 1 year ago
then we wouldnt interpret such a signal as a sign of intelligence..haha nice thought then why are you thinking so hard to rationalize it..where did your thought come from..is from the small dot and explode or in a depth darkness..
kawanan777 1 year ago
I'm regularly astounded by what id/creationists consider to be thought provoking questions. I'm not a fan of making video responses, and i usually can't get my point across in 500 characters that youtube allows in the comments section. So i guess thanks for doing it for me. My answers would have most certainly been different in delivery and specific content, but you got the ideas across exactly as i would have tried to do.
So thanks for being the voice of reason in a cloud of superstition.
jib1000 1 year ago
Whats more logical? God + Big Bang? Or nothing + Big Bang?
nazra7 1 year ago
@nazra7 Nothing + Big Bang does not correspond to any scientific theory I am aware of. On the other hand "Energy + Laws of Physics + Big Bang" makes more sense than "[supernatural entity of your choice] + Big Bang."
ozmoroid 1 year ago
@ozmoroid "On the other hand "Energy + Laws of Physics + Big Bang" makes more sense than "[supernatural entity of your choice] + Big Bang." "
Just because it makes more sense to you doesn't mean its true. This is a logical fallacy, appealing to simplicity.
nazra7 1 year ago
@nazra7 Nope. The preference for simplicity is Occam's razor, and it's a fundamental part of science. My point is that we have evidence for energy and the laws of physics and the Big Bang. We don't have evidence for God.
ozmoroid 1 year ago
@ozmoroid If something is simple that doesn't make it true.
"My point is that we have evidence for energy and the laws of physics and the Big Bang. We don't have evidence for God."
We don't have evidence for natural selection either. But we have evidence for changes in gene frequency over time. So you have to come up with a theory as to how that happens.
Just as you have to come up with a theory how the big bang and the laws of physics came out of nothing.
nazra7 1 year ago
Comment removed
nazra7 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I know there's a law in physics that says things within an isolated system can't change themselves. Only things outside of the system can change it. I don't remember what that law was called but I think this pretty much proves there was something timeless, spaceless, and powerful enough to be outside the universe bringing it into existence along with space, time, and the laws of physics.
nazra7 1 year ago
@nazra7
Uh.. Appealing to simplicity isn't a logical fallacy? Why is it that creotards like you think that you can just put appeal before anything and claim that it's a fallacy?
your argument is baseless because you fail to address how God came to exist. Nothing + Nothing = God? How is that more plausible than Nothing + Big Bang = The universe? (According to your argument)
verzen 1 year ago
@verzen "Appealing to simplicity isn't a logical fallacy?
Thinking that because something is simple makes it true is the fallacy.
"Why is it that creotards like you "
1 I'm not a creationist. 2, ad hominens are also a logical fallacy.
"your argument is baseless because you fail to address how God came to exist. "
Again, a timeless entity needs no beginning. Because without time there is no beginning.
"Nothing + Nothing = God?"
More like Nothing + God = God.
nazra7 1 year ago
@nazra7
We aren't stating, "Because it's simple automatically means it is true." We are stating that simplicity is USUALLY the correct answer so it is better to pick a simpler answer rather than a more complex one if you have no evidence in favor of either.
"1 I'm not a creationist. 2, ad hominens are also a logical fallacy."
It's not an ad hominem. I'm not saying you're wrong or your argument is wrong because you're a creotard. And yes. If you disbelieve evolution and the big bang...
verzen 1 year ago
@verzen "We are stating that simplicity is USUALLY the correct answer"
Perhaps I misunderstood you then. I'm sorry.
"It's not an ad hominem"
I'm sorry but "creotard" is a direct insult which is an ad hominen.
"And yes. If you disbelieve evolution and the big bang..."
Well I don't disbelieve in either.
nazra7 1 year ago
@nazra7
Ad hominems are only ad hominems when they are meant to replace an argument. For example. Just because I called you an idiot does not mean you are wrong. It does not refute your argument. My creotard comment was not refuting anything. Insult yes. Logical fallacy, unfortunately no.
verzen 1 year ago
@verzen "Ad hominems are only ad hominems when they are meant to replace an argument."
I'm pretty sure you meant to say "creotard" as a scapegoat. As if me being a "creotard" meant you're some how intellectually superior than I.
"Just because I called you an idiot does not mean you are wrong."
Mind boggling. If I wasn't wrong then I'm not an idiot. But even if I was that doesn't automatically make me an idiot with regards to my argument.
nazra7 1 year ago
@nazra7
Actually I'm intellectually superior to you because I'm intellectually superior as demonstrated by our conversation.
On your second part of the post. That's what I said. Just in different words. In order for something to be an ad hominem, it must be in the form of an argument or a rebuttal to an argument in replace of any actual argument.
verzen 1 year ago
@verzen "Actually I'm intellectually superior to you because I'm intellectually superior as demonstrated by our conversation."
Wow... how arrogant. How silly...
nazra7 1 year ago
@nazra7 I agree, religious people are just misinformed. However, the more educated people get the higher the possibility it is that they will question their faith and come with a conclution that requires empirical evidence. Most religious people just haven't taken that stance of trying to find the truth, in some cases instead of trying to be correct. That is where the stupidity lies, otherwise they are just like the rest of us. They have potential, but are just too stubborn atm.
vatiz93 1 year ago
@vatiz93 "However, the more educated people get the higher the possibility it is that they will question their faith and come with a conclution that requires empirical evidence."
Proof does not only come in the form of empirical evidence, and many higher educated people find all sorts of evidence for God's existence, after questioning it of course.
nazra7 1 year ago
@nazra7 Care to give me any examples? If not could you just define what you mean by having proff that does not "only" come in the form of empirical evidence?
vatiz93 1 year ago
@vatiz93 "Care to give me any examples?"
Fine tuning, Hubble's law, Hartshorne's and Plantiga's ontological arguments, DNA codes, archeological evidence for biblical events such as the plagues in Egypt which most were cause by the eruption of the Santorini volcano, and the flood of Noah, which Noah's ark had been discovered in Mount Ararat, check out some videos of the Chinese expeditions there on youtube, and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, pure brimstone can be found there today +more
nazra7 1 year ago
@nazra7 I take it you are a creationist, meaning you don't believe in evoluton or Big Bang. Wouldn't that be an issue? You mentioned the flood of Noah which means you believe in a young earth, interesting, I'll just pose one question: What makes you think psuedo scientists are more trustworthy than scientists with a real degree?
I'm sorry, but could you spesifically point out what you mean by: "Proff does not only come in the form of empirical evidence"? By defintion that doesn't make sense.
vatiz93 1 year ago
@vatiz93 "I'm sorry, but could you specifically point out what you mean by: "Proff does not only come in the form of empirical evidence"?"
That's alright. Empirical evidence is observable evidence, maybe I'm wrong about that. What I was trying to say is physics gives unobservable evidence, so does philosophy. So not all evidence has to be observable.
nazra7 1 year ago
@nazra7 Observable evidence? Wouldn't you say data is one of them? Philosophy is about thinking, it's not supposed to bring evidence to the table. In science you're supposed to start with an hypothysis and comes up with conclution through observation and knowledge on various subjects. During this processes you must try to prove it wrong, and defend your hypophysis or new conclution with some reason to think its valid. Apologists on the other hand; just wants to be right.
vatiz93 1 year ago
@nazra7 Philosophy regulary deals with morality and different religious viewpoints, it often takes information into account like holy scriptures and their stories and message. Through science and modern day thinking we have accumalted information that tells us otherwise, if your personal God did exist then why would he decieve with this mountain of evidence for an old earth, evolution, and arguments for the big bang? History has taught us religion itself is a naive, manipulating, hypocrite.
vatiz93 1 year ago
@nazra7 @nazra7 Ask yourself, why Christianity? Maybe you were indoctrinated, maybe you had friends who wanted you to become a part of the church. In the end, you have people who just can't get themselves to be expected to believe in something with blind faith. These people who 'God' knew would become atheists, meaning there is no free will, will burn in your sadistic fantasies forever. I recommend a video for a my next argument: "3.3.3 Atheism: A History of God (Part 1)".
vatiz93 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@vatiz93 "Ask yourself, why Christianity?"
Because the evidence has shown that Christianity is most likely true.
"Maybe you were indoctrinated, maybe you had friends who wanted you to become a part of the church."
Genetic fallacy.
"n the end, you have people who just can't get themselves to be expected to believe in something with blind faith."
Christianity does not rely on blind faith, but as much faith as you have that the sun will rise everyday.
nazra7 1 year ago
@verzen "Actually I'm intellectually superior to you because I'm intellectually superior as demonstrated by our conversation."
Oh yes, that's why you think saying nothing + something = something is circular reasoning.
nazra7 1 year ago
A being with no beginning? Have you ever heard of the concept of SPECIAL PLEADING? Yes. That IS a fallacy.
"Nothing + God = God."
Circular reasoning. We are talking about how God first came to exist. You can't just make up special rules for your God to abide by.
verzen 1 year ago
@verzen "A being with no beginning? Have you ever heard of the concept of SPECIAL PLEADING? Yes. That IS a fallacy."
I have justified why a God has no begging. Because he is timeless. Its only special pleading if I did not justify the proposition, which I have done.
"Circular reasoning."
It is not. By your logic 0+1 = 1 is circular reasoning.
nazra7 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nazra7
Claiming that he is timeless IS special pleading. That is no justification.
"It is not. By your logic 0+1 = 1 is circular reasoning."
Wrong. I'm not trying to prove the existence of 1. You are trying to prove the existence of God by using God in the proposition.
verzen 1 year ago
@verzen "How is that more plausible than Nothing + Big Bang = The universe?"
Because, nothing has no material to work with. And without a conscious will, even if there was material in the singularity, because of the conservation law, nothing inside the isolated system (which is inside the singularity) can change it.
Think of it this way: When sugar in a glass of water reaches equilibrium and is not touched, it remains in equilibrium, unchanging, unless something outside the cub influences it.
nazra7 1 year ago
If you understood space time, nothing does have something to work with because 1 matter and 1 anti-matter have a net energy level of zero. That means that our universe has a net energy level of zero. When matter and anti-matter come apart, they create something to work with. I know it is a difficult concept to understand. But research the science please.
verzen 1 year ago
@nazra7
The universe may not be an isolated system. And besides, we don't know what created the universe. I'm honest enough to say that. What we do know is what we find after the planck period. We can trace the beginnings back to that time. Plus, elements within the universe change and alter all the time. Hydrogen continuously becomes helium in a star for example.
verzen 1 year ago
@verzen "The universe may not be an isolated system"
Thats pure speculation and would require a lot of faith to believe so. Something you despise. All the evidence we have is that before the big bang there was a singularity and nothing existed outside of it.
"Plus, elements within the universe change and alter all the time."
But they don't change the universe.
nazra7 1 year ago
@nazra7
I used the magic word, 'may.' It's a possibility. Claiming that something is a possibility requires zero faith.
verzen 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@verzen "Claiming that something is a possibility requires zero faith."
Believing that the universe may be eternal requires much faith. Claiming it does is useless and irrelevant...
nazra7 1 year ago
No, not the poisson gas! x^k * e^-k /k! people will die! Minor nitpick there is a crime that cannot be forgiven - blaspheming the holy spirit. So if I you have a choice of saying bad things about something that probably doesn't exist or murder, the Christians say do the murder.
newperve 1 year ago
@newperve As you can see, spelling was never my strong suit. On the other hand, "The Poison Equation" does grab one's attention. A bit more dramatic, no?
ozmoroid 1 year ago
I really don't care what christians say there bases for life comes from a primitive book with anti-human beliefs that they choose to deny and only feed you the good stuff from the new testament. To me its pure ignorants to deny all the negative info in the old testament and its dishonest to ones self to choose to look the other way because they made a new testament. Christianity,Islam suck at bringing man together for piece and fails over and over what more proof do you need idiots.
wachnathan 1 year ago
Christian: GOD LOL YEAH GOD
Me: Well I think otherwise.
Christian: LOL U NO PROOF
Me: I have some references for you...
Christian: TL;DR
Me: How about this simple scientific book then for more information?
Christian: NAH I ALRADY HAS A KEWL BOOK
Me: Penis.
Christian: HELL DAMN HELL DAMN TO HELL
pythor2 1 year ago